Best Proust in English
Michael Paine
Moncrief (sp?) translation. I understand there has been and least one
translation since then, maybe more.
Has anyone read more than one translation? And if so, could you comment.
Michael
--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Gotter selbst vergebens -Schiller-
fido
Michael Paine:
> I am going to re-read Proust. Way back when, thirty years plus, I read the
> Moncrief (sp?) translation. I understand there has been and least one
> translation since then, maybe more.
> Has anyone read more than one translation? And if so, could you comment.
Its still Scott Moncrief, but SM corrected by Kilmartin and he in turn by
Enright. Chatto & Windus.
fido
Feuillade
> I am going to re-read Proust. Way back when,
> thirty years plus, I read the Moncrief (sp?)
> translation. I understand there has been and
> least one translation since then, maybe more.
> Has anyone read more than one translation?
> And if so, could you comment.
Moncrieff's translation is based on a faulty text -- what Beckett called the
"abominable" edition of the Nouvelle Review Francaise.
Kilmartin's 1980s 3-volume revision of Moncrieff was based on the 1954 3-volume
Pleiade edition.
Enright's 1990s 6-volume revision of Kilmartin's revision was based on the
1987-1989 4-volume revision of the Pleiade 1954 edition.
Still with me? :)
Enright's edition is probably the one based on the best text, but, oddly
enough, I find it markedly more "British" in those places where I have compared
it with Moncrieff's original version. Making Gilberte sound like a proper
British schoolgirl ("I should bloody well hope not!") doesn't quite sound
right.
Penguin has announced a new translation of Proust, done by six or seven
different translators (each taking a volume) that will be published in a year
or two.
Incidentally, Richard Howard was quoted in the Sunday New York Times Magazine
section in 1988 as saying that he was far along in his own translation of
Proust. I recently checked with the people at Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and
they tell me that the project has been abandoned.
Too bad. There is a crying need for an American translation of Proust.
But in the meantime, go with Enright.
Tom Moran
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran.index.html
My 100 Best Novels List:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran25.index.html
Silent Film Screenings in New York:
http://members.aol.com/Feuillade/TomMoran17.index.html
Sofonisba
guess you would have to be independently wealthy, or something.
sofonisba
Paul Ilechko
>Its still Scott Moncrief, but SM corrected by Kilmartin and he in turn by
>Enright. Chatto & Windus.
Or hardcover from The Modern Library, in 6 heavy volumes !
Mark Calkins
of Chris Pendergast (sp), 6 different translators are translating one volume
each (will there be some kind of "uniformity" of voice across the volumes? is
that important?).
The Penguin Web site on this new translation sollicits queries and comments
about the new translation, and boasts that Mr. Pendergast (sp) will reply to
every posting. But after a year and 3 postings, I have yet to hear a response
from him about the rationale behind another translation (for example, why do
we really need one?). That's very tacky.
AND what is Penguin thinking? The new translation is on the horizon and it
just reissued the *old* Scott-Moncrieff in the new Masterpieces/Classics of
the 20th Century series.
Curious.
Feuillade
> A new translation is due from Penguin next year.
The Penguin/Proust webpage (whose URL is: http://www.penguin.co.uk/proust/),
claims that their new translation "is scheduled for publication in the year
2001."
> Under the general editorship of Chris Pendergast (sp), [...]
It's Prendergast.
> 6 different translators are translating one
> volume each (will there be some kind of
> "uniformity" of voice across the volumes?
> is that important?).
What's even more confusing is that one of these translators (James Grieve), has
already translated "Swann's Way" which was published in Australia in 1982. So
why aren't they using it?
> The Penguin Web site on this new translation
> sollicits queries and comments about the new
> translation, and boasts that Mr. Pendergast (sp)
> will reply to every posting. But after a year and
> 3 postings, I have yet to hear a response from him
> about the rationale behind another translation (for
> example, why do we really need one?). That's very
> tacky.
Tacky but understandable. They probably didn't expect the deluge of e-mail
which, I suspect, they received. But then, I'm willing to give them the
benefit of the doubt.
I e-mailed them, taking them up on their offer to offer my own translation of
the famous opening sentence (my version was : "Time was when I would get to bed
at a decent hour"), and never heard back from them.
> AND what is Penguin thinking? The new translation
> is on the horizon and it just reissued the *old*
> Scott-Moncrieff in the new Masterpieces/Classics
> of the 20th Century series.
> Curious.
Curious but understandable -- they republished the Scott-Moncrieff because they
could, and no one else was doing it.
A new translation of Proust is both needed and necessary. How many more
recyclings of the Scott-Moncrieff translations will we see before someone takes
the bull by the horns and decides to do it over again from scratch?
I applaud Penguin's efforts and look forward to reading their new version.
Mark Calkins
Feuillade wrote:
> A new translation of Proust is both needed and necessary. How many more
> recyclings of the Scott-Moncrieff translations will we see before someone takes
> the bull by the horns and decides to do it over again from scratch?
It's not clear to me why a new translation is both needed and necessary.
Questions:
1. Does the Scott-Moncreiff/Kilmartin/Enright translation(s) contain striking
errors that distort the original French in deleterious ways?
2. What audience do they expect to serve?
3. On what basis is the hypothetical "general reader" to make a choice between
translations?
4. How large is the audience for Proust that is sensitive to and concerned with
issues of translation in the first place? More crassly, how large can the audience
be that gives a damn that they have the choice of one translation of Proust over
the other? (My presumption here, perhaps erroneous, is that readers who care about
Proust in translation are already able to read Proust in French. Even if I
imagine, for example, a graduate student in English writing on Anglo-American
Modernism who picks up Proust to broaden their understanding of the period, I find
it hard to believe that a choice of translations would be of value to them. Are
professors who teach Proust in translation asking for a new one?)
5. In brief, what is the rationale behind the new translation? (see #2, below)
Statements (one harsh):
1. The current translation does need a more robust set of notes (not on the scale
of Pléiade or Folio editions, but identifying some of the figures from French
history and French literary history would be helpful). That does not acquire a new
translation, however.
2. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be. Although I have nothing
invested in the current translation (it's certainly adequate), a new one only seems
gratuitous to me.
3. My impression is that the new translation is a purely academic exercise, and in
an age when foreign language departments and programs are more and more frequently
called upon to justify their existence in the academy (at least in the US), this
new translation, when a perfectly adequate one already exists, seems like the
pathetic last throes of a certain academic ancien régime.
4. Then again, I could be absolutely delighted by the new translation.
Paul Ilechko
wrote:
>AND what is Penguin thinking? The new translation is on the horizon and it
>just reissued the *old* Scott-Moncrieff in the new Masterpieces/Classics of
>the 20th Century series.
>Curious.
Perhaps because Proust is somewhat hot right now (relatively
speaking), and this was the only version they had rights to use ?
Penguin is out to make money, you know ...
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>> A new translation of Proust is both
>> needed and necessary. How many
>> more recyclings of the Scott-Moncrieff >> translations will we see before
>> someone takes the bull by the horns
>> and decides to do it over again from >> scratch?
> It's not clear to me why a new translation
> is both needed and necessary.
> Questions:
>1. Does the Scott-Moncreiff/Kilmartin/Enright > translation(s) contain
striking errors
> that distort the original French in
> deleterious ways?
The current translation is decidedly more British than the original
Scott-Moncrieff version.
I think, as did Brecht, that a British translation may not be appropriate for
an American readership. This is why he demanded that there be separate British
and American translations of his plays.
I think that classics (and I think we would agree that Proust *is* a classic at
this point) need to be reinterpreted with each generation. As good as the
Enright might be, it's still a re-write of a 60-plus-year-old translation.
It's a truism that classics don't date, but translations do. I'd like to see a
new version of Proust.
> 2. What audience do they expect to serve?
Te audience that reads Proust for credit (i.e., college students and grad
students), as well as those adventurous readers who want something challenging
to read.
>3. On what basis is the hypothetical
> "general reader" to make a choice
> between translations?
How do they choose now between the Constance Garnett, Louise and Alymer Maude,
Rosemary Edmonds and Ann Dunnigan translations of "War and Peace"?
If there are four separate translations of "War and Peace," why shouldn't there
be at least as many of Proust?
> 4. How large is the audience for
> Proust that is sensitive to and
> concerned with issues of translation
> in the first place? More crassly, how
> large can the audience be that gives
> a damn that they have the choice of
> one translation of Proust over
> the other? (My presumption here,
> perhaps erroneous, is that readers
> who care about Proust in translation
> are already able to read Proust in
> French. Even if I imagine, for example,
> a graduate student in English writing
> on Anglo-American Modernism who
> picks up Proust to broaden their > understanding of the period, I
> find it hard to believe that a choice
> of translations would be of value to
> them. Are professors who teach
> Proust in translation asking for a
> new one?)
I would say that this is the publisher's business, not ours. (See below)
>5. In brief, what is the rationale
> behind the new translation? (see #2,
> below)
This is simple. The publisher thinks there is a need for it and thinks that
there is sufficient audience for it to enable them to make a profit on a new
translation.
We'll see soon enough whether they're right or not.
> Statements (one harsh):
> 1. The current translation does need
> a more robust set of notes (not on the
> scale of Pléiade or Folio editions,
> but identifying some of the figures
> from French history and French
> literary history would be helpful).
I would agree with this.
> That does not acquire a new
> translation, however.
I think you mean "require."
> 2. Just because it can be done, doesn't
> mean it should be. Although I have
> nothing invested in the current
> translation (it's certainly adequate),
> a new one only seems gratuitous to me.
New translations are always necessary.
In fact, since it's been 30 years since the last translation of "War and
Peace," I'm surprised that no one's taken a whack at that.
> 3. My impression is that the new
> translation is a purely academic exercise, [...]
And you base this opinion on what, exactly?
>[...] and in an age when foreign
> language departments and programs
> are more and more frequently
> called upon to justify their existence
> in the academy (at least in the US),
> this new translation, when a perfectly > adequate one already exists, seems
> like the pathetic last throes of a certain > academic ancien régime.
To me it sounds like capitalism.
> 4. Then again, I could be absolutely > delighted by the new translation.
That too is possible.
Dan Schmidt
but I thought I would give my thoughts on a few of your questions.
Mark Calkins <mcal...@cnet.com> writes:
| Questions:
|
| 1. Does the Scott-Moncreiff/Kilmartin/Enright translation(s) contain striking
| errors that distort the original French in deleterious ways?
My understanding, which was gained almost solely from
<http://www.proust.com/moncrieff6.html>, is that the Scott Moncrieff
translation had a number of problems, which were largely addressed by
Kilmartin.
| 4. How large is the audience for Proust that is sensitive to and
| concerned with issues of translation in the first place?
I imagine that anyone interested in reading Proust is going to want
the translation to be done well.
| More crassly, how large can the audience be that gives a damn that
| they have the choice of one translation of Proust over the other?
I don't really care how many translations there are, as long as I have
access to a good one.
| (My presumption here, perhaps erroneous, is that readers who care
| about Proust in translation are already able to read Proust in
| French.
I read Proust in English, and I'm glad that Scott Moncrieff and
Kilmartin gave me the opportunity to do so. I've had some exposure
to other languages but not enough to read any adult-level text, much
less Proust.
| 1. The current translation does need a more robust set of notes (not
| on the scale of Pléiade or Folio editions, but identifying some
| of the figures from French history and French literary history would
| be helpful). That does not acquire a new translation, however.
This I agree with completely.
| 3. My impression is that the new translation is a purely academic
| exercise, and in an age when foreign language departments and
| programs are more and more frequently called upon to justify their
| existence in the academy (at least in the US), this new translation,
| when a perfectly adequate one already exists, seems like the
| pathetic last throes of a certain academic ancien régime.
Given that the Scott Moncrieff translation dates from the 1920's, it
seems reasonable to me to attempt a new one. I think that in theory
it's a good thing for any masterpiece of world literature to have two
or more translations, to help prevent the English being taken for the
real thing.
It doesn't really matter to me, though. I'm interested to see how the
new translation turns out, but I'm not going to read the whole thing
over again...
--
Dan Schmidt -> df...@harmonixmusic.com, df...@alum.mit.edu
Honest Bob & the http://www2.thecia.net/users/dfan/
Factory-to-Dealer Incentives -> http://www2.thecia.net/users/dfan/hbob/
Gamelan Galak Tika -> http://web.mit.edu/galak-tika/www/
Paul Ilechko
wrote:
> (My presumption here, perhaps erroneous, is that readers who care about
>Proust in translation are already able to read Proust in French.
Not necessarily true.
>1. The current translation does need a more robust set of notes (not on the scale
>of Pléiade or Folio editions, but identifying some of the figures from French
>history and French literary history would be helpful).
The version I have has "a guide to Proust" in the last volume, that
has quite substantial detail on people, places and themes. What more
are you looking for ?
Paul
Joann Zimmerman
> AND what is Penguin thinking? The new translation is on the horizon and it
> just reissued the *old* Scott-Moncrieff in the new Masterpieces/Classics of
> the 20th Century series.
> Curious.
One small advantage (literally): the seven-volume edition is much
easier to carry around, a volume at a time, for reading on planes,
subways, or in coffee breaks. Imagine carrying the fatter editions
around ...
--
"I never understood people who don't have
bookshelves." --George Plimpton
Joann Zimmerman jz...@harrispk.com
Feuillade
> mcal...@cnet.com wrote:
>> AND what is Penguin thinking?
>> The new translation is on the horizon
>> and it just reissued the *old* >> Scott-Moncrieff in the new >>
Masterpieces/Classics of
>> the 20th Century series.
>> Curious.
> One small advantage (literally):
> the seven-volume edition is much
> easier to carry around, a volume at
> a time, for reading on planes,
> subways, or in coffee breaks.
Proust isn't exactly a coffee break or a subway kind of writer. He demands the
kind of sustained attention that is impossible on, for example, a plane or a
subway.
> Imagine carrying the fatter editions
> around ...
Actually, some publisher in Paris has published the first one-volume edition of
Proust, in paperback.
I recently saw it at the French bookstore in New York. It's 2,408 pages, and
approximately the size of the Flatiron Building.
Meg Worley
>> One small advantage (literally):
>> the seven-volume edition is much
>> easier to carry around, a volume at
>> a time, for reading on planes,
>> subways, or in coffee breaks.
Tom bristles:
>Proust isn't exactly a coffee break or a subway kind of writer. He demands the
>kind of sustained attention that is impossible on, for example, a plane or a
>subway.
Perhaps you aren't able to give the appropriate sort
of attention on certain forms of transport, but my
own experience suggests that planes and especially
trains of all kinds are the very *best* places to
read books that call for languorous appreciation.
Stately prose is best read while moving.
Rage away,
meg
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Feuillade
> Joann had written:
>>> One small advantage (literally):
>>> the seven-volume edition is much
>>> easier to carry around, a volume at
>>> a time, for reading on planes,
>>> subways, or in coffee breaks.
>Tom bristles:
Bristles?
I didn't bristle -- merely stated an opinion. And a pretty obvious one, I
should think.
>> Proust isn't exactly a coffee break
>> or a subway kind of writer. He
>> demands the kind of sustained
>> attention that is impossible on, for
>> example, a plane or a subway.
> Perhaps you aren't able to give the
> appropriate sort of attention on certain
> forms of transport, but my
> own experience suggests that planes
> and especially trains of all kinds are the
> very *best* places to read books that
> call for languorous appreciation.
Some books, perhaps.
But not Proust.
Trollope can be read on a train. I've read Thackeray on Amtrak and enjoyed it.
But Proust on a train? Not a good idea.
> Stately prose is best read while moving.
I don't know that I'd call Proust's prose "stately." But I *do* know that it's
best read the way Proust wrote it -- in bed.
Preferably late.
Meg Worley
Joann had written:
>>>> One small advantage (literally):
>>>> the seven-volume edition is much
>>>> easier to carry around, a volume at
>>>> a time, for reading on planes,
>>>> subways, or in coffee breaks.
>>Tom bristles:
>Bristles?
>
>I didn't bristle -- merely stated an opinion. And a pretty obvious one, I
>should think.
Hey, I only know what I read in the news! But if you
prefer "cavill," that is fine too.
(This bit is Tom:)
>>> Proust isn't exactly a coffee break
>>> or a subway kind of writer. He
>>> demands the kind of sustained
>>> attention that is impossible on, for
>>> example, a plane or a subway.
(and this is I[1]:)
>> Perhaps you aren't able to give the
>> appropriate sort of attention on certain
>> forms of transport, but my
>> own experience suggests that planes
>> and especially trains of all kinds are the
>> very *best* places to read books that
>> call for languorous appreciation.
>Some books, perhaps.
>
>But not Proust.
>
>Trollope can be read on a train. I've read Thackeray on Amtrak and enjoyed it.
>
>But Proust on a train? Not a good idea.
Again, I disagree. It has been far too many years, but
trains played their part in my reading of Proust, and
they aided, not hindered the endeavor. Not everyone
reads in the same way, and give me leave to optimize
my reading as my own experiences suggest. (And Joann's
as well, to judge from her original comment.)
>> Stately prose is best read while moving.
>I don't know that I'd call Proust's prose "stately." But I *do* know that it's
>best read the way Proust wrote it -- in bed.
>
>Preferably late.
Oh, that's just the stereotypical way to read him. Not
to impede your own bedly proustiness, but I couldn't
possibly read him in bed. Went in for that myself once
but I pulled up in time -- saw it wouldn't do.
Rage away,
meg
[1] predicate nominative a bas, sez me.
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Michael Zeleny
>>>Tom bristles:
Perhaps you were merely wanting the standard Proustian bedtime
complement of a Turkish boy, a brace of mice, and a sharp needle.
>Rage away,
>
>meg
>
>
>[1] predicate nominative a bas, sez me.
>--
>m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Cordially -- Mikhail Zel...@math.ucla.edu * M...@ptyx.com ** www.ptyx.com
God: "Sum id quod sum." ** 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046
Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." * 323.876.8234 (fon) * 323.876.8054 (fax)
Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." **** www.alonzo.org
established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
Meg Worley
Tom had written:
>>>I don't know that I'd call Proust's prose "stately." But I *do*
>>>know that it's best read the way Proust wrote it -- in bed.
>>>Preferably late.
I wrote:
>>Oh, that's just the stereotypical way to read him. Not to impede
>>your own bedly proustiness, but I couldn't possibly read him in bed.
>>Went in for that myself once but I pulled up in time -- saw it
>>wouldn't do.
The Zelenious Mikhail writes:
>Perhaps you were merely wanting the standard Proustian bedtime
>complement of a Turkish boy, a brace of mice, and a sharp needle.
I've had a Turkish boy or two in my time, but those
days are long gone. Now Orhan Pamuk is the only
Turk in my bed.
Perhaps Tom, as an avowed proustly bedder, will tell me
if it is the lack of mice and needle that retards my
supine appreciation.
midtown neon
As I Lay Dying?
I Am in Camera?
neon, m.
Puss in Boots
> I don't know that I'd call Proust's prose "stately." But I *do* know that
> it's best read the way Proust wrote it -- in bed.
Do you sleep in a cork-lined room?
-- Moggin
Feuillade
Kevin McGee
Boots) wrote:
> Do you sleep in a cork-lined room?
I started Proust on a train to a Cork house. Am I the golden mean?
-KM
Joann Zimmerman
feui...@aol.com the Multi-Listed wrote:
> jz...@harrispk.com writes:
> > One small advantage (literally):
> > the seven-volume edition is much
> > easier to carry around, a volume at
> > a time, for reading on planes,
> > subways, or in coffee breaks.
>
> Proust isn't exactly a coffee break or a subway kind of writer. He demands the
> kind of sustained attention that is impossible on, for example, a plane or a
> subway.
Chacun a son gout. All the Proust reading that I have successfully
accomplished has been done on public transport and in coffee
breaks/lunchtimes. Of course, I wrote most of my dissertation in
longhand in a coffeehouse with blues or whatever competing almost
successfully with the local instantiations of La Tavola Italiana and
the German Club in heterodyne.
A bas les cork-lined chambres! (Pardon my French.)
David J. Loftus
: One small advantage (literally): the seven-volume edition is much
: easier to carry around, a volume at a time, for reading on planes,
: subways, or in coffee breaks. Imagine carrying the fatter editions
: around ...
I definitely could. That's one of the reasons I tend to prefer
clothbounds over paperbacks -- I like the HEFT of a book. Makes it feel
like something more substantial that I'm spending my time on.
The only time it gets to be a bother is when I'm reading in bed: gets
hard for my hands to hold up after a while, as well as uncomfortable to
rest on the ribs or tummy.
David Loftus
Joann Zimmerman
I get very painful shoulder problems if I carry around too much heavy
stuff. The ideal is a small paperback that just fits inside a not-too-
large purse. (I'm trying to ignore the fact that I've been carrying
around a super-lightweight briefcase for years and years.) As far as
reading in bed goes, light weight also works there: easier to balance a
plate while holding the book in the other hand, and the cat--a
relatively aloof beast--is somehow less intimidated by a paperback, and
shows slightly more interest in cuddling up. (This cat somehow was born
without the infamous Newspaper Gene possessed by every other feline of
my acquaintance, the one where the animal insists on getting between
newspaper--or other literature--and reader at all costs.)
On the other hand, good-size books are great for couch reading or
working at a desk or table.
Ted Samsel
: : One small advantage (literally): the seven-volume edition is much
: : easier to carry around, a volume at a time, for reading on planes,
: : subways, or in coffee breaks. Imagine carrying the fatter editions
: : around ...
: I definitely could. That's one of the reasons I tend to prefer
: clothbounds over paperbacks -- I like the HEFT of a book. Makes it feel
: like something more substantial that I'm spending my time on.
: The only time it gets to be a bother is when I'm reading in bed: gets
: hard for my hands to hold up after a while, as well as uncomfortable to
: rest on the ribs or tummy.
My brother refused to read A MAN IN FULL in bed. Falling asleep with
such a weight on your chest makes for startling awakenings. Not as
bad as waking up with a 30 lb cat on your face, though.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net (or tbsa...@richmond.infi.net)
"do the boogie woogie in the South American way"
Rhumba Boogie- Hank Snow (1955)
Kirk McElhearn
> Proust isn't exactly a coffee break or a subway kind of writer. He
> demands the kind of sustained attention that is impossible on, for
> example, a plane or a subway.
I actually read Proust, the first time, on the subway - I had about 40
minutes each way, from Queens to Manhattan, and it took about one year.
> > Actually, some publisher in Paris has published the first one-volume
>>edition of Proust, in paperback. I recently saw it at the French
>>bookstore in New York. It's 2,408 pages, and > approximately the size
>>of the Flatiron Building.
Not quite that big, but kind of like a small phone book. It is a bit
heavy for reading in bed, alas.... But the price is ok.
Kirk
vice | versa
Translations from French to English, English to French
Traductions francais-anglais, anglais-francais
ki...@mcelhearn.com http://www.mcelhearn.com
Kirk McElhearn | 91 rue de la Mesangerie | 37540 St Cyr sur Loire |
France
SubGenius
Meg Worley (m...@steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: Perhaps you aren't able to give the appropriate sort
: of attention on certain forms of transport, but my
: own experience suggests that planes and especially
: trains of all kinds are the very *best* places to
: read books that call for languorous appreciation.
: Stately prose is best read while moving.
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
If only one's bowels. Your Humble Narrator worked through the Moncrieff
(in the easily-handled older Vintage trade editions---the ones in the
horrid pastel shades) as lootide reading. A work better suited to
such a reading is difficult to conceive. Excepting, perhaps, Burgess'
Enderby novels.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN2VbWEOoGXQKy1gNAQHxOAP+Nkv8mX3RvUhvlttpp2C/oLx/RuQ0lZqL
QcWyf8cgHC2wiR7M7TdvWy+4qUhAbTzVhzpwuM5J6Rr9D28MzNY4j8esHoP4dCbo
DqJ4/mDHehgWukRGsVZGRiizdg4h/+pPEbvNXgHwHU/oLy6TitiT+VM3wX/qwe7C
P5lMnhlcJio=
=2Em9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Meg Worley
>: Stately prose is best read while moving.
SubGenius writes:
>If only one's bowels. Your Humble Narrator worked through the Moncrieff
>(in the easily-handled older Vintage trade editions---the ones in the
>horrid pastel shades) as lootide reading. A work better suited to
>such a reading is difficult to conceive. Excepting, perhaps, Burgess'
>Enderby novels.
Ooh, Subby, you're shocking the serious-minded Mr. Moran!
If one has already logged *A la recherche du pain perdu*,
*Science News* is published specifically as head-fodder.
Feuillade
> I had written:
>>> Stately prose is best read
>>> while moving.
> SubGenius writes:
>> If only one's bowels. Your Humble >> Narrator worked through the Moncrieff
>> (in the easily-handled older Vintage >> trade editions---the ones in the
>> horrid pastel shades) as lootide
>> reading. A work better suited to
>> such a reading is difficult to conceive. >> Excepting, perhaps, Burgess'
>> Enderby novels.
> Ooh, Subby, you're shocking the > serious-minded Mr. Moran!
I don't think "shocking" is quite the right word.
I'll leave it to you to ponder what might be the mot juste...
Ted Samsel
: I had written:
: >: Stately prose is best read while moving.
: SubGenius writes:
: >If only one's bowels. Your Humble Narrator worked through the Moncrieff
: >(in the easily-handled older Vintage trade editions---the ones in the
: >horrid pastel shades) as lootide reading. A work better suited to
: >such a reading is difficult to conceive. Excepting, perhaps, Burgess'
: >Enderby novels.
: Ooh, Subby, you're shocking the serious-minded Mr. Moran!
: If one has already logged *A la recherche du pain perdu*,
: *Science News* is published specifically as head-fodder.
The local curmudgeonly rag (POOR RICHMOND ALMANAC) for which I
sometimes write has a questionable series by a local "personality"
named "Huey the Turd Terrorist". It's a travelogue where he
writes about where he has "left his mark" in this here town.
Some folks are amused by it.
YMMV.
I don't think he has read Enderby, etc.
midtown neon
Calder Willingham?
End As a Man?
neon, m.
SubGenius
Meg Worley (m...@steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
: >Your Humble Narrator worked through the Moncrieff
: >(in the easily-handled older Vintage trade editions---the ones in the
: >horrid pastel shades) as lootide reading. A work better suited to
: >such a reading is difficult to conceive. Excepting, perhaps, Burgess'
: >Enderby novels.
: Ooh, Subby, you're shocking the serious-minded Mr. Moran!
: If one has already logged *A la recherche du pain perdu*,
: *Science News* is published specifically as head-fodder.
+---------------------------------SubG------------------------------------+
So, too, _Cryptologia_, and its issues (published quarterly) tend to
be more commodious. A-and if you submit an unsolicited paper for their
consideration, even if it's rejected, the editorial board will at least
mail you a...nevermind.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN2yyUUOoGXQKy1gNAQEcfgP9GqYCqVwiuojkN8jeaWnplpTLgJuxL1K2
V9gfbsZ2FiPwJbG9CJPbDY7yWQukEk03IypTi288T/NizssB+aiAArAgAOiMnAaa
h9QtCbRzuFvFDcst7UagaBMMKQBPmFMvUrA6QLzOaPboZLxCmGeW6m6ZHpBV2UwY
0/itXA4vGLA=
=XAHc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----